Talk:Canadian Psychological Association

History section - recent edits
I recently updated the 'history' section to create as comprehensive a history of the CPA as I could with the information I had available. Those edits were completely removed. I made the changes I did because I believe the 'history' section, as it is currently written here, is less a history and comes across more as an unsubstantiated personal opinion. Phrases like ‘This was an amazing policy, that Canadian psychologists could contribute to the mass-killing of innocent bystanders and children’ are editorializing, and read as a fairly significant leap in logic from the previous statements. Likewise the comparisons to Nazis. Very little of this is the ‘history’ of the organization, and should likely not be put under ‘history’. And a very large portion of the 'history' section has nothing to do with the CPA – the entire ‘APA parallels’ section should be on the APA page. The ‘no term limits’ section is entirely an editorial, and as such does not, I believe, belong in a Wikipedia article. Reference [8] appears not to be a link to the letter cited, but rather to a paper interpreting that letter. Starting this discussion here in an effort to avoid an edit war - I think the history I added to the page should stand, as it is a documented history. Should the controversy over involvement in war be included, I think it needs to be better documented than it is as currently written, and may merit a paragraph - but should not constitute the whole history of the organization as currently written. FuriousManatee (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * May 27, 2022: Hi, Thanks for your explanation. I appreciate your patience and respectful tone, and would like to find a win-win approach. First (and with all due respect), are you being paid by CPA or affiliated with CPA or a previous CPA officer or employee/contractor? Or a military employee, publicist, lobbyist or contractor in Ottawa?
 * It would be quite possible for you to add other parts, while not removing the sections on the history of CPA’s dual conflicting policies on healthcare and warfare. But if there is an occasional phrase with an editorializing tone, it could make sense to put a small set of words in a more professional, objective tone.
 * You make several suggestions that Sections 1.1 to 1.5 are not well documented and are unsubstantiated. That is simply not true: there are reputable citations and documentation with practically every sentence. This includes refereed journals such as Ethics and Behavior, highly-regarded academic books such as Robert Jay Lifton’s study of institutionalized militarism by medical professionals, reports of key events in The Washington Post, copies of actual CPA letters. These sections are extensively documented.
 * The reason the professional psychology associations from Germany in the 1930s-1940s and the APA military activities were included is to show well-documented evidence of the same history of politicization, distortions and consequences in other national psychological associations. This is central to the history of CPA, and they published a major policy statement on it in 1992 in their Psynopsis newsletter, which is referenced. CPA and APA have a joint Membership Agreement (https://cpa.ca/membership/becomeamemberofcpa/cpaapamembershipagreement/). Both CPA and APA have falsely denied that their codes of ethics can be used to support violence and military action. Following APA's Hoffman investigation in 2015, the Norlin Library at the University of Colorado requested documentation on the parallel denials and policies at CPA (as referenced in Section 1.4). CPA's Code of Ethics and decades of policies based on it are not a trivial footnote.
 * Why not add your own valuable information and documentation, without sanitizing and removing this documentation based on your own political opinion? There are other Wikipedia pages that include historical controversies in this way too. For example:
 * - The Wikipedia page about a controversy at Dupont chemical co. They gave lots of people cancer, and then tried to cover this up for decades:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont_(1802%E2%80%932017)#Perfluorooctanoic_acid_(PFOA;_C8)
 * - Theranos fake blood testing, with a photo of the architect Elizabeth Holmes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theranos. (It would similarly be possible to include a photo of Carole Sinclair on the CPA page as the original and longstanding author of the CPA ethics policies and misrepresentations allowing armed force and violence.)
 * - Purdue Pharma: another example of healthcare malfeasance, profiting from the Oxycontin opiod epidemic and trying to cover up their involvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purdue_Pharma
 * The first thing noted on the CPA Wikipedia page under Policy and Position statements is that CPA has a code of ethics which is reviewed and revised regularly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Psychological_Association#Policy_and_position_statements). Therefore, this topic is hardly a minor footnote for CPA. Perhaps like them, you would try to deny it altogether, if their actual letters and references weren’t included as citations. That’s why the documentation needs to be included.
 * The above 3 examples of professional malfeasance with Theranos, Dupont and Oxycontin also name the key individuals responsible at each organization. It is also important here to have a section showing the key people behind this secret policy at CPA, and that they have been in power for some 30 years (the No Term Limits section). That is not editorializing; this is a key policy that was in place for decades (at least since the formal policy statement in 1992 and probably since the start of CPA). It is also a key part of the code of ethics and policy statements on which CPA is founded and which are outlined on this Wikipedia page in Section 3.
 * Happy to work constructively with you by email on a mutually-agreeable version, if that helps.
 * In any case, the simplest and least confrontational approach would be for neither of us to delete the other’s section, and for you to simply add any new content desired. That would achieve your goal that “the history that you added to the page could stand”, and would add to “the whole history of the organization”. Does that seem reasonable? PsycProf (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * June 3 2022: I have made some wording changes to make the language more objective in Sections 1.1 - 1.5.
 * I also wanted to add a clarification about what you call “comparisons to Nazis”. That is not what these sections do. Contradictions between healthcare ethics and military work have been studied extensively for Nazi healthcare professionals, so are very relevant here. Complicity of healthcare professionals with the Nazi government is the foundation of modern Medical Ethics.
 * There is a whole literature on this, including Robert Jay Lifton’s seminal book The Nazi Doctors, which is referenced here.
 * The Nazi government (a) developed forced sterilization and the gas chambers for mass-murder in mental health institutions, before expanding to concentration camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau and Majdanek for the Holocaust. (b) Medical professionals working for the German government of the time also did well-documented Nazi human experimentation on involuntary participants (using means-ends arguments as a justification). Criteria such as informed consent — which is used in all psychological research in Canada and is covered in Principle 1 of CPA's Code of Ethics — originated in medical ethics (the “Nuremberg Code”) defined in the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi healthcare professionals after WWII.
 * Those with professional expertise in this field will know that “To this day, the Nuremberg Code remains a major stepping stone for medical experimentation” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation#Aftermath). References to healthcare ethics for psychologists and doctors of the Nazi government are therefore hardly “editorializing” or “unsubstantiated personal opinion”. PsycProf (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * June 7 2022: A clarification re your comment: "Reference [8] appears not to be a link to the letter cited, but rather to a paper interpreting that letter." Wikipedia does not require a link to the original letter. Rather than Original Research data, Wikipedia primarily uses articles that are verifiable in a reliable source like this one published in "Perspectives on the Professions”, 1997, 16(2): 9–11 by Illinois Institute of Technology’s Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions.
 * Reference 8 first comes up in Section 1.1, where it is used to point out that (although APA’s code of ethics specifically cannot be used to violate human rights) CPA’s code does allow human rights to be violated, based somehow on Principle 1: Respect for the Dignity of Persons.
 * Reference 8 is again cited in section 1.2, where it is used to explain several other memos and policy statements from CPA officials. This follows the best practice for Wikipedia, using a verifiable source to summarize historical events. PsycProf (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am indeed affiliated with the CPA, which is how I came upon this Wikipedia article in the first place. I’d prefer to continue this discussion here rather than via email, as I think keeping a public record is in the best interest of proceeding to address the issue at hand.
 * I see what you’re saying about other Wikipedia pages, but those pages you referenced present issues that are well-documented in the public record. Theranos, for example, cites reputable news sources (Wall Street Journal, New York Times - https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-inc-s-partners-in-blood-1526662047 ) for the documentation of the abuses they committed. In this case there are indeed many citations, but many are not directly or even indirectly related to the CPA – they reference the APA (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/report-american-psychological-association-colluded-with-us-interrogation-programs/2015/07/10/42b0cbec-2741-11e5-b72c-2b7d516e1e0e_story.html) or the Red Cross (https://www.icrc.org/en/who-we-are/mandate) or other articles that are related to the subject of what you’re writing about, rather than the object.
 * The reason I think the 'no term limits' section you've written is entirely an editorial is that it starts from the premise that 'all these things happen because of a lack of term limits' which is an opinion - the citations that are included (letters, or links to articles about term limits themselves) do not support the assertion that term limits are an issue. The only thing that asserts that is the section title and what you have written under it.
 * Those articles that do reference the CPA in connection to these allegations seem to be written almost entirely by one person, a Craig Summers. My suggestion is that we put in the history section I created, and under a separate heading include some of what you wrote under a ‘Craig Summers’ heading. ‘Craig Summers accusations’, or something like that? This way the focus of that paragraph can remain on the CPA, and detail the allegations this Dr. Summers has made, without needing to get into the weeds referencing Nazis - you're right that the Nazis are a huge reason for the creation of modern medical ethics, but I would think that that history belongs on a page about medical ethics - or Nazis - and not the CPA. For reference, I’d point you to other Wikipedia entries where the object of the entry has been the subject of allegations – Steven Seagal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Seagal#Allegations_and_lawsuits) or Alex Haley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Haley#Plagiarism_lawsuits_and_other_criticism) or George Takei (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Takei#Rescinded_sexual_misconduct_allegation)
 * Creating a ‘Craig Summers’ section would avoid the confusion of trying to draw Nazi Germany and the APA and Guantanamo Bay into the article – it could keep the section focused on the CPA itself without having to make those leaps in logic from one thing to another. It’s all well and good to cite references and articles about the APA involvement (as has been done extensively on their Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association#Warfare_and_the_use_of_torture) when the APA is the subject of the article. Connecting the APA with the CPA because of a joint membership agreement makes a lot of this confusing.
 * I think if you were to consolidate what you currently have here under ‘history’ into this ‘Craig Summers’ section, you could be more direct, with more relevant references, about what you want to convey here.
 * How does that sound? FuriousManatee (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * June 13 2022: It is a violation of the rules for someone “affiliated with the CPA” to edit their own Wikipedia page, which is a Conflict of Interest. No-one affiliated with CPA should edit this page. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest If you continue to do so, appropriate action will be taken with senior editors at Wikipedia.
 * If you are simply a media rep or advertiser and not a psychologist, ethicist, historian of psychology or even a CPA member, I suggest you verify with CPA’s Board of Directors before you proceed any further here on their behalf. Instead of going to great lengths to promote a sanitized image, CPA should just correct the policy (or hire an ethicist to help them do so). It is fine for healthcare professionals to work for the military — but only for treating people, not developing/operating weapons to harm or kill people. Secret policies are also unacceptable. That’s why the APA and German psychological associations are relevant to the CPA history. Particularly when both APA and CPA spent many years denying (falsely) that their codes of ethics actually do allow work on weapons and to harm or kill people. CPA could also finally resolve this by making a statement that CPA members are no longer allowed to develop/operate weapons to harm or kill people under any circumstances (the same as APA did).
 * Your profile page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FuriousManatee) notes that you are on the Board of Operation Come Home (and are aware that you have a Conflict of Interest for Wikipedia posts about that charity). How do you think that charity would feel about you defending a secret kill policy at CPA? At APA, the same thing led to numerous investigations by government agencies and by APA itself, as well as articles in sources like the New York Times and The Washington Post, that permanently damaged APA’s reputation and forced APA to correct the secret policies. Now you are doing the same thing at CPA. Not a great look for an Ottawa charity like Operation Come Home. CPA is not acting with integrity or in accord with its own stated values, if it still has secret policies like APA had. By publicizing misleading, sanitized information here you are also responsible for this (in violation of Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest rules). It will discredit Operation Come Home to be associated with this longstanding deception at CPA.
 * You have also been making edits on the Operation Come Home page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Come_Home&action=history) even though you are on their Board of Directors. The denials and secret policies at CPA already got APA into trouble for doing the same thing. You need to be very careful about trying to sanitize the 30-year history of CPA on Wikipedia, when you have a clear Conflict of Interest. This may also affect your edits on the Operation Come Home page.
 * As noted on the Wikipedia Conflicts of Interest page (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Consequences_of_ignoring_this_guideline) “If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually… If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed”.
 * Incidentally, this malfeasance is not about any particular author, academic or journalist including Dr. Summers (and as noted on the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest page, such naming and allegations may be harassment). Similarly, the APA Wikipedia section about secret policies is titled “Warfare and the Use of Torture” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association#Warfare_and_the_use_of_torture) and is not named after any of the investigators. The problem is the secret policies, not the reporters. There is a whole research literature on this, it is not based on any one individual. For example, the academic text “The Genocidal Mentality: Nazi Holocaust and the Nuclear Threat” by Robert Jay Lifton and Eric Markusen looks at situations like this where an organization or professionals can support violence without feeling complicit. You may not be familiar with this research literature, but Dr. Markusen also edited several other academic research books on the topic of collective violence, each of which has _multiple_ authors contributing chapters. Also, at both CPA and APA the original concern about policies allowing members to harm people did not come from any individual, it came from the Section on Social Responsibility. As you can see in Reference 13, Carole Sinclair’s letter stating that CPA had no policy to prohibit its members from work on nuclear weapons was addressed to CPA’s own Section on Social Responsibility. PsycProf (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you're looking to make this about me rather than dealing with the substance of what I've laid out here. When I edited the Operation Come Home page it was to create an accurate history of the organization based on documents, news articles, and references few others would have had - which is what I have done here, albeit with references and documents that are more publicly available. What you have submitted is not, in any way, an accurate history of the organization - it is a history of the allegations made decades ago by Dr. Summers (and, it would seem upon further research, only Dr. Summers). So, in the spirit of transparency and disclosing conflicts of interest I ask, are you Dr. Summers? FuriousManatee (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * June 13, 2022: There is no conflict of interest in being an experienced and qualified researcher in the field of professional ethics. If one is also a psychologist and has had CPA membership, that in fact gives good qualifications for making edits about CPA on healthcare ethics and military work. Not a conflict of interest.
 * However, since you admittedly have an affiliation with CPA: “The type of COI editing of most concern on Wikipedia is paid editing for public relations (PR) purposes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia Moreover: “This guideline strongly discourages COI editing and advises those with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, to refrain from direct article editing.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_on_conflict-of-interest_editing Even on this Talk page, “The paid-contribution-disclosure policy, which has legal ramifications, requires that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any contribution for which they are paid, including talk-page contributions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#Wikipedia_on_conflict-of-interest_editing
 * In addition, the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines specify that it is not appropriate to try to expose the identity of Wikipedia editors. As already noted in my earlier post today: “you must be careful not to expose them. Wikipedia's policy against harassment is more important than this guideline.” https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
 * This is getting repetitive, so I am going to have to call time and probably won’t respond any further about these issues to you on this Talk page, due to your Conflict of Interest being affiliated with CPA. But if you would like my help as a psychologist to add content from your original submission (without covering up the well-documented CPA policy contradictions in Sections 1.1 - 1.5), I may be able to add additional sections for you to create a more comprehensive history of the CPA, which you originally claimed above was your primary intention.
 * - PsycProf (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest (COI) guidelines specify that it is not appropriate to try to expose the identity of Wikipedia editors. As already noted in my earlier post today: “you must be careful not to expose them. Wikipedia's policy against harassment is more important than this guideline.” https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
 * This is getting repetitive, so I am going to have to call time and probably won’t respond any further about these issues to you on this Talk page, due to your Conflict of Interest being affiliated with CPA. But if you would like my help as a psychologist to add content from your original submission (without covering up the well-documented CPA policy contradictions in Sections 1.1 - 1.5), I may be able to add additional sections for you to create a more comprehensive history of the CPA, which you originally claimed above was your primary intention.
 * - PsycProf (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
I noticed the same problems as the above editor and have edited the article to remove content that violates our policies on original research, neutral point of view, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. Most of the sources for that section were PDFs hosted on someone's personal website, and the homepage when I accessed it today makes it clear the goal is to push a particular POV on Wikipedia saying "in case this is deleted from the Wikipedia page in future [link to copy of POV edits]". Per our guidelines on self-published sources this is not particularly reliable; anyone can make a website and put up PDFs they claim are real letters from 30 years ago. At various points these were also used to justify contentious material about living people which raises issues with out policy on content related to living people. They were also used for quotations which is against our guidelines on sourcing quotations. The most reliable sources were two opinion pieces written 30 years ago with no secondary sources claiming their significance to the wider history of the organization. These were removed for, among other reasons, issues of giving undue weight to minor aspects. Pretty much nothing from that section was salvageable except for the few sentences about the organization's founding. Editors should see my edit summaries for a more granular summary of why particular lines were removed. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Aug. 6, 2022: Wugapodes, you are deleting the whole section and just removing it from history? These events were significant for the profession of Psychology in Canada, and for professional ethics.
 * How is this history any different than the description on APA’s Wikipedia page about similar policies, lies, cover-ups and developing/using methods of harming people? Are you going to erase that history too?
 * As you can see under View History for the CPA page, their staff anonymously attempted to mass-blank the whole section about 8 times, to cover up the truth. Now you are doing the same thing.
 * Are you even a psychologist? It does not appear so from your contribiution history — so it is hard to see how you could know what is significant “to the wider history of the organization” as you call it. This was so significant in both Canada and the US that both CPA and APA had sub-groups called the Section on Social Responsibility, to work against policies allowing psychologists to develop/use weapons on human beings during the Cold War and nuclear arms race. But there was no reason to cite newsletters of the CPA Section on Social Responsibility to prove that this is a significant issue. Note that Carole Sinclair’s letter from CPA's Committee on Ethics stating that CPA was not taking any professional ethics position on nuclear weapons work was addressed to the Chair of CPA’s Section on Social Responsibility.
 * It appears that you are a very frequent Wikipedia editor, so hopefully you are not a paid consultant/employee of CPA like the other “editors” who previously mass-blanked Sections 1.1-1.5 (like you have done now). Therefore, I will try to go through your explanations and put the material back with any adjustments to meet your concerns. There is only one citation that is a document that was "submitted" rather than the slightly shorter final publication by the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions (CSEP), Illinois Institude of Technology. The PDF can be removed with only the citation to the 1997 article, but that just means that anyone interested will need to go to an academic library and wait weeks to get the original with less information. But that change can be made.
 * Your claim that the most reliable sources “were two opinion pieces written 30 years ago” is factually wrong. These are academic articles with extensive documentation, not “opinion pieces”. Similarly, Robert Jay Lifton's book The Nazi Doctors (which was a citation that you deleted) is not an "opinon piece". And it does not matter if these were written 30 years ago; they are in a section on historical ethics.
 * Finally there is no “comparison to Nazis here” as you claim in the Revision History. You should not be editing articles on professional ethics if you do not have relevant professional experience with professional ethics to understand this. As noted in the June 3 2022 comment above on this Talk page, “Complicity of healthcare professionals with the Nazi government is the foundation of modern Medical Ethics. There is a whole literature on this, including Robert Jay Lifton’s seminal book The Nazi Doctors, which is referenced here.”
 * By deleting all of that, you are sanitizing CPA’s actual activities, policies, cover-ups and lies related to military work. You are compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by deleting the entire history. If something wasn't presented following correct Wikipedia procedures, please constructively _help_ to clarify the history by fixing it (or letting me know by requesting a change here). Don’t just delete Sections 1.1 - 1.5. We need truth, not lies and cover-ups. PsycProf (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * These events were significant for the profession of Psychology in Canada, and for professional ethics. Find a secondary source that says that.
 * it is hard to see how you could know what is significant “to the wider history of the organization” as you call it. That's why we require secondary sources and don't just go by what some rando online posted to their website and claimed was true.
 * It appears that you are a very frequent Wikipedia editor, so hopefully you are not a paid consultant/employee of CPA I'm not Canadian nor a member of the CPA; I'm an American linguist who improved Linguistic Society of America to good article status, so I like to think I know about how to write articles on professional organizations. FuriousManatee asked on 13 June 2022 whether you had a conflict of interest, but curiously you're the only one here who hasn't been forthcoming about that. Do you have any connection to cpa-documentation.info? You seem to know a lot about this fringe website that doesn't even show up on the first few pages of google results for "Canadian Psychological Association".
 * The PDF can be removed with only the citation to the 1997 article, but that just means that anyone interested will need to go to an academic library and wait weeks to get the original with less information. The entire catalog of Perspectives is freely available online. I know this because I looked it up and reviewed the actual published version which you seem to think requires going to an academic library? Did you try to find the original published version? Also, the fact that the pre-print version had no editorial oversight makes it less reliable, so your point about the original having "less information" doesn't makes the source even more suspicious.
 * These are academic articles with extensive documentation, not “opinion pieces”. One was published in Psynopsis and the other in Perspectives on the Professions. The editorial policies for Psynopsis say, explicitly, that it is not an academic journal and that "articles written in an academic style" will be rejected. Hardly the pinnacle of academic publishing, and given the editorial guidelines it seems like a stretch to call it an "academic article". The other was published in a periodical called Perspectives on the Professions (emphasis added); it's a position paper quite literally meant to give an author's "perspective" (i.e., opinion) on a particular debate. As you previously mentioned, the version you cited didn't have any editorial oversight, and even the published version that I reviewed had no indication of peer review. I know all this because I took the time to research the reliability of these sources, and it's incredibly suspicious that you're making claims so easily debunked.
 * there is no “comparison to Nazis here” as you claim in the Revision History. From the removed text: "...Canadian psychologists could contribute to the mass-killing of innocent bystanders and children. Even psychologists complicit in the Holocaust did not have a formal policy like this". Come on, it's not even subtle. Did you even look at the text I removed before claiming there was no comparison?
 * Complicity of healthcare professionals with the Nazi government is the foundation of modern Medical Ethics. That's cool, this isn't an article on modern medical ethics; take it somewhere else.
 * If something wasn't presented following correct Wikipedia procedures, please constructively _help_ to clarify the history by fixing it I did, you just don't like that the fix was to remove it. It's your responsibility to convince others why your claims are worth including.
 * We need truth, not lies and cover-ups Yeah, we have an essay on "the truth", and another, and another. People make that argument a lot and it usually doesn't work out for them.
 * — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, I will go through the details while rebuilding the history of CPA's secret policies on military work. (The same as APA's secret policies and deception, which are documented on the APA page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association#Warfare_and_the_use_of_torture). But I just wanted to clarify why the Psynopsis article is important even though it is not a reliable source. You are admittedly not a psychologist, not an ethicist, and not a CPA member as you commented on your Talk page, so you are drawing conclusions in superficial ways here as a layperson. The Psynopsis article was CPA's first official policy statement on how their members can use their code of ethics to do work that harms and kills other human beings without consent. What other healthcare organization has a policy like that? None. It is a detailed policy statement published in CPA's own newspaper. There is no expectation that CPA's policy statement is published in an academic journal. PsycProf (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @PsycProf I haven't looked in detail at the edits that you have been warring over. I don't feel I need to at this stage, because @Wugapodes appears to have done a very good job. My sense, as a non-involved editor is that you are trying to use Wikipedia to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS about which you have strong emotional feelings and views. Your professional involvement is irrelevant, as all editors must be capable of using a wide range of sources (as laymen) to summarise those sources on Wikipedia, and we are entitled to edit complicated topics providing we understand the secondary sources we are using, and can determine which are reliable and which are not. If there has been controversy associated with this organisation, then maybe a 'Controversies' section could be warranted. But the History section you want to see had become a rambling mess of apparent opinion and unreliable sources. Not even its American counterpart had such a long-winded History section. You said: "...I just wanted to clarify why the Psynopsis article is important even though it is not a reliable source." If it is not a reliable source, then it cannot be used here. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wugapodes, I will go through the details while rebuilding the history of CPA's secret policies on military work. (The same as APA's secret policies and deception, which are documented on the APA page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychological_Association#Warfare_and_the_use_of_torture). But I just wanted to clarify why the Psynopsis article is important even though it is not a reliable source. You are admittedly not a psychologist, not an ethicist, and not a CPA member as you commented on your Talk page, so you are drawing conclusions in superficial ways here as a layperson. The Psynopsis article was CPA's first official policy statement on how their members can use their code of ethics to do work that harms and kills other human beings without consent. What other healthcare organization has a policy like that? None. It is a detailed policy statement published in CPA's own newspaper. There is no expectation that CPA's policy statement is published in an academic journal. PsycProf (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @PsycProf I haven't looked in detail at the edits that you have been warring over. I don't feel I need to at this stage, because @Wugapodes appears to have done a very good job. My sense, as a non-involved editor is that you are trying to use Wikipedia to RIGHT GREAT WRONGS about which you have strong emotional feelings and views. Your professional involvement is irrelevant, as all editors must be capable of using a wide range of sources (as laymen) to summarise those sources on Wikipedia, and we are entitled to edit complicated topics providing we understand the secondary sources we are using, and can determine which are reliable and which are not. If there has been controversy associated with this organisation, then maybe a 'Controversies' section could be warranted. But the History section you want to see had become a rambling mess of apparent opinion and unreliable sources. Not even its American counterpart had such a long-winded History section. You said: "...I just wanted to clarify why the Psynopsis article is important even though it is not a reliable source." If it is not a reliable source, then it cannot be used here. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Primary sourced content
I have removed vast swathes of primary sourced promotional content. Articles should be based on what reliable independent sources report, NOT what their own website says. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Healthcare Ethics and Military Work
Many of these Talk entries (up to the date of this posting) are about a previous version of this article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Psychological_Association&oldid=1102402481 (Sections 1.1 - 1.5) which covered the history of CPA's conflicting ethics policies on member involvement in healthcare, military work and weapons of mass destruction. 24.114.94.208 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)